| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
31 Jan 2005 04:02:40 AM |
| Object: |
Christianity's Latest Religious War |
OP-ED COLUMNIST, New York Times
Torture Chicks Gone Wild
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: January 30, 2005
ASHINGTON
By the time House Republicans were finished with him, Bill Clinton
must have thought of a thong as a torture device.
For the Bush administration, it actually is.
A former American Army sergeant who worked as an Arabic interpreter at
Gitmo has written a book pulling back the veil on the astounding ways
female interrogators used a toxic combination of sex and religion to
try to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba. It's
not merely disgusting. It's beyond belief.
The Bush administration never worries about anything. But these
missionaries and zealous protectors of values should be worried about
the American soul. The president never mentions Osama, but he
continues to use 9/11 as an excuse for American policies that bend the
rules and play to our worst instincts.
"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their
families and much of the world will think this is a religious war
based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case,"
the former sergeant, Erik R. Saar, 29, told The Associated Press. The
A.P. got a manuscript of his book, deemed classified pending a
Pentagon review.
What good is it for President Bush to speak respectfully of Islam and
claim Iraq is not a religious war if the Pentagon denigrates Islamic
law - allowing its female interrogators to try to make Muslim men talk
in late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake
menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and
thong underwear?
It's like a bad porn movie, "The Geneva Monologues." All S and no M.
The A.P. noted that "some Guantánamo prisoners who have been released
say they were tormented by 'prostitutes.' "
Mr. Saar writes about what he calls "disturbing" practices during his
time in Gitmo from December 2002 to June 2003, including this anecdote
related by Paisley Dodds, an A.P. reporter:
A female military interrogator who wanted to turn up the heat on a
21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in
Arizona before 9/11 removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt.
She began belittling the prisoner - who was praying with his eyes
closed - as she touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's
back and commented on his apparent erection.
After the prisoner spat in her face, she left the room to ask a Muslim
linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The
linguist suggested she tell the prisoner that she was menstruating,
touch him, and then shut off the water in his cell so he couldn't
wash.
"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her
he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain
strength," Mr. Saar recounted, adding: "She then started to place her
hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee. As she circled
around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants.
When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood
on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at
her with a piercing look of hatred. She then wiped the red ink on his
face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged
forward," breaking out of an ankle shackle.
"He began to cry like a baby," the author wrote, adding that the
interrogator's parting shot was: "Have a fun night in your cell
without any water to clean yourself."
A female civilian contractor kept her "uniform" - a thong and
miniskirt - on the back of the door of an interrogation room, the
author says.
Who are these women? Who allows this to happen? Why don't the officers
who allow it get into trouble? Why do Rummy and Paul Wolfowitz still
have their jobs?
The military did not deny the specifics, but said the prisoners were
treated "humanely" and in a way consistent "with legal obligations
prohibiting torture." However the Bush White House is redefining
torture these days, the point is this: Such behavior degrades the
women who are doing it, the men they are doing it to, and the country
they are doing it for.
There's nothing wrong with trying to squeeze information out of
detainees. But isn't it simply more effective to throw them in
isolation and try to build some sort of relationship?
I doubt that the thong tease works as well on inmates at Gitmo as it
did on Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
FRice Antiwar: http://www.skeptictank.org/antiwar.htm
FRice Tree Sit: http://www.skeptictank.org/treesit/treesit.htm
"The basis of your cockeyed political beliefs is some sort of damage to
your ability to remember anything but Clinton's *****." -- Carlos
.
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity's Latest Religious War |
31 Jan 2005 03:08:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:02:40 GMT, (Fredric
L. Rice) wrote:
(Trimmed)
The military did not deny the specifics, but said the prisoners were
treated "humanely" and in a way consistent "with legal obligations
prohibiting torture." However the Bush White House is redefining
torture these days, the point is this: Such behavior degrades the
women who are doing it, the men they are doing it to, and the country
they are doing it for.
They bloody hell ARE NOT doing it for "the country!" They are
doing it for George (hack! spit!) Bush!
---
http://lastliberal.org
Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig
"The one great gift to humankind from our nuclear physicists has been
the nuclear bomb. How can we ever thank them?" -- Edward Abbey
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
